which generally involved a recognition of particular pagan divinities ; and that they condemned these pagan oaths, rather as involving, or even directly containing, a profession of the popular paganism, than as unlawful in themselves. The Christians of the later ages may perhaps be said to have multiplied in an opposite degree the occasions of oaths, especially of what were called " purgatorial" oaths, in which a party charged with a crime justified himself by swearing his innocence. These oaths were commonly accompanied by some impreca- tory form or ceremonial, and were often expected to be followed by immediate manifestations of the divine vengeance upon the perjurer. The common instrument of attestation on oath was the Bible, or some portion of it ; but oaths were sometimes sworn on the relics of saints, or other sacred objects; sometimes simply by raising the hand to heaven, or by laying it upon the breast or the head. In canonical processes the oath was often administered to the party kneeling. The forms varied very much, the most general being that which the English oath still retains {Sic me Deus adju- vet). Divines commonly require, in order to the law- fulness of an oath, three conditions (founded upon Jer. iv, 2), viz. truth, justice, and judc/meni ; that is to say, (1) that the asseveration, if the oath be assertive, shall be true, and that the promise, if the oath be promissory, shall be made and shall be kept in f/ood/aith ; (2)that the thing promised shall be objectively lawful and good ; (3) that the oath shall not be sworn without due discrc tion and deliberation, nor without satisfactory reasons founded on necessity, or at least? on grave anil manifest utility. Hence the person who is a witness must have sufficient understanding to know the nature and obliga- tions of an oath; and on this ground young children are incompetent to be witnesses. Another condition or qualification required in the party who takes an oath as a witness is, that he has a competent sense of religion; in other words, he must not only have some religious knowledge, but some religious belief. He must, in sub- stance, believe in the existence of a (iod, and in the moral government of the world ; and though he cannot be questioned minutely as to his particular religious opinions, yet, if it appear that he does not believe in a God and future state, he will not be allowed to give his evidence, for it is assumed that without the religious sanction his testimony cannot be relied upon. So long, however, as a witness appears to possess competent re- ligious belief, the mere form of the oath is not material. The usual practice in the United States and in (ireat Britain is for the witness, after hearing the oath repeated by the officer of court, to kiss the four gospels by way of assent; and in Scotland the witness repeats similar words after the judge, standing and holding up his right hand, ''swearing by Almighty God, as he shall answer to God at the great day of judgment," but with- out kissing any book. Jews, if they so desire, are sworn on the Pentateuch, keeping on their hats, and the oath ends with the words, " So help you Jehovah." A Mo- hammedan is sworn on the Koran ; a Chinese witness has been sworn by kneeling and breaking a China sau- cer against the witness-box. Thus the mere form of taking the oath is immaterial; the witness is allowed to take the oath in whatever form he considers most binding upon his own conscience — the essential thing being, however, that the witness acknowledge some l)ind- ing effect derived from his belief in a God or a future state. The ))olicy of insisting upon .the religious lor- malities attending the taking of an oath has been much discussed of late years, and it has been disputed whother atheists, who avow an entire absence of all religious be- lief, should be entirely rejected as witnesses (as is some- times the case), and justice be thereby frustrated. See Palcy, Moral Philosophy, vol. i, ch. xvi; Grotius, De Jure, i, 11, c. 13, § 21; Barrow, Works, vol. i, scr. 1.5; Burnet, Exposition of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, p. 475, 515 sq. ; Herport, Essmj on Truths of Importance and Doctrine of Oaths ; Doddridge, Lectures,
OATH OF ABJURATION
265
OATH OF CONFORMITY
lect. 189 ; Tillotson, 22d Sermon ; Wolsely, Unreasona- bleness of Atheism, p. 152; Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. iii ; Junkin, The Oath a Divine Ordinance (N. Y. 1845) ; Tyler, Oaths, their Origin, Nature, and History. On the casuistry of oaths: Sanderson, De Jurament. Oblif/. Pretlect. (ed. 1(588). Sec also Literature in Mal- com, Theol. Index, s. v., and Notes and Queries, Jan. to June, 1860, and Dec. 1859. (J. H. W.)
Oath of Abjuration is a name for the oath which was administered to the subjects of Scotland after the deposition of king James. The obnoxious clause in this oath reads as follows :
" And I do faithfully pi-oraise, to the utmost of my power, to support, maimain, and defend the succession of the crown agniust him, the said James, and all other persons whatsoever, as the same is and stands settled by an act entitled 'An Act declaiing the Rights and Liber- lies of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown lo her present Majesty and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants ;' and as the same, by another act enti- tled 'An Act for the fiu'ther limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands settled." See NoNJUKORS.